Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Secular Trends in Cesarean Delivery Rates among Macrosomic Deliveries in the United States, 1989 to 2002

Journal of Perinatology volume 25, pages 569–576 (2005)Cite this article

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

We describe national trends in cesarean delivery rates among macrosomic infants during 1989 to 2000 and evaluate the maternal characteristics and risk factors for macrosomic infants delivered by cesarean section as compared to macrosomic infants delivered vaginally.

STUDY DESIGN:

We analyzed US 1989 to 2000 Natality files, selecting term (37 to 44 week) single live births to U.S. resident mothers. We compare macrosomic infants (4000 to 4499, 4500 to 4999 and 5000+ g infants) to a normosomic (3000 to 3999 g) control group.

RESULTS:

The proportion of cesarean deliveries among 5000+ g infants increased significantly over the time period. The adjusted odds ratio of cesarean delivery increased for all macrosomic categories over the 12-year period, as compared to normal birth weight infants.

CONCLUSIONS:

Rates of cesarean delivery among macrosomic infants continue to increase despite a lack of evidence of the benefits of cesarean delivery within this population. Further exploration of the rationale for this trend is warranted and should include the development of an optimal delivery strategy for such patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boulet SL, Alexander GR, Salihu HM, Pass M . Macrosomic births in the united states: determinants, outcomes, and proposed grades of risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188 (5):1372–1378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 22. Washington, DC: ACOG; 2000.

  3. Weiner Z, Ben-Shlomo I, Beck-Fruchter R, Goldberg Y, Shalev E . Clinical and ultrasonographic weight estimation in large for gestational age fetus. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2002;105 (1):20–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rouse DJ, Owen J . Sonography, suspected macrosomia, and prophylactic cesarean: a limited partnership. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2000;43 (2):326–334.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kolderup LB, Laros Jr RK, Musci TJ . Incidence of persistent birth injury in macrosomic infants: association with mode of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;177 (1):37–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nesbitt TS, Gilbert WM, Herrchen B . Shoulder dystocia and associated risk factors with macrosomic infants born in California. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;179 (2):476–480.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gregory KD, Henry OA, Ramicone E, Chan LS, Platt LD . Maternal and infant complications in high and normal weight infants by method of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92 (4 Part 1):507–513.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Menacker F, Curtin SC . Trends in cesarean birth and vaginal birth after previous cesarean, 1991–99. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2001;49 (13):1–16.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sachs BP, Kobelin C, Castro MA, Frigoletto F . The risks of lowering the cesarean-delivery rate. N Engl J Med 1999;340 (1):54–57.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Roberts CL, Algert CS, Carnegie M, Peat B . Operative delivery during labour: trends and predictive factors. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2002;16 (2):115–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ananth CV, Demissie K, Kramer MS, Vintzileos AM . Small-for-gestational-age births among black and white women: temporal trends in the United States. Am J Public Health 2003;93 (4):577–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kramer MS, Morin I, Yang H, et al. Why are babies getting bigger? Temporal trends in fetal growth and its determinants. J Pediatr 2002;141 (4):538–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wen SW, Kramer MS, Platt R, et al. Secular trends of fetal growth in Canada, 1981 to 1997. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2003;17 (4):347–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brost BC, Goldenberg RL, Mercer BM, et al. The Preterm Prediction Study: association of cesarean delivery with increases in maternal weight and body mass index. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;177 (2):333–337; discussion 337–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rhodes JC, Schoendorf KC, Parker JD . Contribution of excess weight gain during pregnancy and macrosomia to the cesarean delivery rate, 1990–2000. Pediatrics 2003;111 (5 Part 2):1181–1185.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Witter FR, Caulfield LE, Stoltzfus RJ . Influence of maternal anthropometric status and birth weight on the risk of cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1995;85 (6):947–951.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Arias E, MacDorman MF, Strobino DM, Guyer B . Annual summary of vital statistics--2002. Pediatrics 2003;112 (6 Part 1):1215–1230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. NCHS. 1989–2002 natality data sets. NCHS CD-ROM Series 20, No. 4. Hyattsville, MD: US Dept Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1989–2000.

  19. Alexander GR, Kotelchuck M . Quantifying the adequacy of prenatal care: a comparison of indices. Public Health Rep 1996;111 (5):408–418; discussion 419.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Haas JS, Udvarhelyi S, Epstein AM . The effect of health coverage for uninsured pregnant women on maternal health and the use of cesarean section. JAMA 1993;270 (1):61–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gould JB, Davey B, Stafford RS . Socioeconomic differences in rates of cesarean section. N Engl J Med 1989;321 (4):233–239.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Braveman P, Egerter S, Edmonston F, Verdon M . Racial/ethnic differences in the likelihood of cesarean delivery, California. Am J Public Health 1995;85 (5):625–630.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Peipert JF, Hogan JW, Gifford D, Chase E, Randall R . Strength of indication for cesarean delivery: comparison of private physician versus resident service labor management. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181 (2):435–439.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Poma PA . Effects of obstetrician characteristics on cesarean delivery rates. A community hospital experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180 (6 Part 1):1364–1372.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Gregory KD, Korst LM, Platt LD . Variation in elective primary cesarean delivery by patient and hospital factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184 (7):1521–1532; discussion 1532–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Blackwell SC, Hassan SS, Wolfe HW, Michaelson J, Berry SM, Sorokin Y . Why are cesarean delivery rates so high in diabetic pregnancies? J Perinat Med 2000;28 (4):316–320.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Reichman NE, Hade EM . Validation of birth certificate data. A study of women in New Jersey's HealthStart program. Ann Epidemiol 2001;11 (3):186–193.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Buescher PA, Taylor KP, Davis MH, Bowling JM . The quality of the new birth certificate data: a validation study in North Carolina. Am J Public Health 1993;83 (8):1163–1165.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by DHHS, HRSA, MCHB Grant 5T76MC00008.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Maternal and Child Health, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA

    Sheree L Boulet MPH, Greg R Alexander RS, MPH, ScD & Hamisu M Salihu MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Sheree L Boulet MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Greg R Alexander RS, MPH, ScD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hamisu M Salihu MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boulet, S., Alexander, G. & Salihu, H. Secular Trends in Cesarean Delivery Rates among Macrosomic Deliveries in the United States, 1989 to 2002. J Perinatol 25, 569–576 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211330

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211330

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links